THE Montanist movement began in Phrygian Mysia, in a village called Ardabau, under the proconsulate
of Gratus. Montanus was a convert, who, according to some traditions, had
previously been a priest of Cybele, and he attracted attention by ecstasies and
transports in which he uttered strange sayings. At such times he seemed to lose
his own individuality; a divine inspirer spoke by his mouth, and not he
himself. Two women, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla, soon developed the
same phenomena, and associated themselves with him. All this was noised abroad,
not only in the remote district where the village of Ardabau was situated, but
throughout Phrygia and Asia, and as far as Thrace. The followers of the new
prophets maintained that it was the Paraclete manifesting himself to the world.
Others who could not accept their view, declared that it was simply a case of
demoniac possession.

The Paraclete
confidently announced the speedy return of Christ, and the Vision of the
Heavenly Jerusalem

descending from above,
which was to appear first in the clouds, and then rest on the earth, at a spot
indicated. This was a plain on the further side of Phrygia, between the two
little towns of Pepuza and Tymion. The three prophets transported themselves
thither, when or wherefore is not precisely known: they were followed by an
immense multitude. In some places the people were so entirely won over to the
movement that all the Christians left. In the feverish expectation of the last
day, country, family, and all earthly ties were disregarded. Marriages were
dissolved; and community of goods and the most severe asceticism prevailed.
This state of mental exaltation was fostered by the words of the possessed
prophets; the voice of the Paraclete was heard, and his exhortations animated them
afresh.

Days, weeks, months, and
years, however, passed away, and still the Heavenly Jerusalem came not. But the
Church on earth, after the first loss of balance, protested a good deal. The
orthodoxy of the prophets was no doubt beyond reproach, and the circumstances
of their time and surroundings lent them some support. The Gospel of St John,
still in the full strength of its new popularity, had roused a special interest
in the Paraclete; the descriptions of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and of the millenium,
in the Apocalypse, were enthralling, and few Christians, in Asia or elsewhere,
banished them from their thoughts on the end of all things. Both tradition and
custom had consecrated the right of prophets to arouse Christians in the name
of the Lord.

The Didache and the New
Testament both show what a prominent place prophecy held in the life of the
early

churches. The Bishop of
Sardis, Melito, was believed to have the prophetic gift. Before him, Quadratus,
Ammias, and the daughters of Philip had been endowed with this gift. They were
still famous. The ascetism of the Montanists did not exceed that permitted,
though not imposed, in other Christian circles. It was free from the dualistic
tendencies of the Gnostics and Marcionites: and anything that seemed extreme
was justified by their firm belief in the near approach of the last day.

Still, this sudden
excitement, this exodus, these exact determinations of time and place,
introduced a sense of profound unrest among the Christian churches. Some of
them had been in existence for nearly a century or more, and had grown
accustomed to live an ordinary life with no special preoccupation as to the
end of all things. They soon met the prophets with the objection that their
proceedings were contrary to custom. In the Old Testament, as in the New,
prophets had never spoken in a state of ecstasy. The communication which, by
their means, was established between God and their hearers, had not hindered
them from preserving their own individuality. They spoke in the name of God,
but it was they themselves who spoke. In the case of Montanus and his
prophetesses, the Paraclete himself was heard, just as in certain pagan
sanctuaries, the gods were heard to speak directly, by the mouth of
pythonesses. "The man himself is a lyre," said the inspired voice,
"and I am the bow which causes him to vibrate ... I am not an angel, nor
a messenger ... I am the Lord, the Almighty." . . . This seemed unusual,
and an abuse, and reprehensible.

Possibly Melito had
already dealt with the matter in his books on prophecy, of which we have but
the titles. Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, resolutely attacked the new
prophets. Another very prominent person in the Christian world of Asia,
Miltiades, wrote a treatise to maintain "that a prophet ought not to
speak in ecstasy."

He was
answered by skilful writers amongst the

Montanists. The
Catholics, however, did not confine themselves to writing; they soon adopted
very different methods. Sotas, Bishop of Anchiala in Thrace, endeavoured to
exorcise Priscilla; and two other Phrygian bishops, Zoticus of Comana, and
Julian of Apamea, betook themselves to Pepuxa, and assailed Maximilla. But
these attempts failed, owing to the opposition of the sect.

The movement spread in
Asia, sowing discord everywhere. In many places, synods assembled, in which
the claims of the prophets were examined and discussed. At last the unity of
the Church was broken; and the opponents of the Paraclete excommunicated his
followers. Some, carried away by their zeal, even ventured to question the
authority of those sacred books, on which the Montanists based their claims:
and they rejected en bloc

all St John's writings,
the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel. This was the origin of that particular
religious school which later St Epiphanius opposed under the name of Alogi.

But if Montanus did not
succeed in winning the churches of Asia as a whole, he at least managed to
introduce profound divisions among them. The Heavenly Jerusalem did not appear
upon earth; but, on the other hand, the movement led to the foundation of a
terrestrial Jerusalem. The name of Pepuza was changed; it was called the New
Jerusalem. It became a holy place; a sort of Metropolis of the Paraclete. The
necessity of feeding the crowds who flocked there at first, led to some kind of
organization in the sect. Before long several others were associated with
Montanus, and continued in

authority after his
death. A certain Alcibiades, then Theodotus, described in one of the documents
we have, as the first overseer of prophecy, and lastly,
Themison, who, hoping to extend and defend the movement, wrote a sort of
encyclical. Themison, it was said, was a confessor of the Faith. The
Montanists, indeed, did not flinch from martyrdom, and dwelt with some
complacency on their own merits in this respect.

All this was much
discussed by the opposition. The financial organization, the collectors of
offerings, and the salaried preachers of the sect were keenly criticized. It
was said that the prophets and prophetesses led a very comfortable, and even
fashionable life, at the expense of their converts.

"Let them be
judged by their works," men said. "Does a prophet frequent the
public baths and paint himself, and does he consider his raiment? Does he play
dice? Or lend money on usury?". Doubts were also expressed as to the
virginity of Priscilla, who like her companion Maximilla had, it was said, left
her husband to follow Montanus. Themison was but a false confessor: he had
purchased his release from martyrdom. Another confessor, much honoured in the
sect, a certain Alexander, was even more worthless. He had indeed been summoned
before the tribunal, but as a brigand and not as a Christian. This was under
the proconsulate of Aemilius Frontinus as the archives of Ephesus testified.

Montanus and Priscilla
died first. Maximilla remained alone and suffered much from the opposition to
which her sect was exposed. The Paraclete groaned within her: "I am
persecuted as though I were a wolf. I am not a wolf; I am Word, Spirit, and
Power." At last she died,

having predicted wars
and revolutions. Malevolent people declared she hanged herself; the same was
said of Montanus; as to Theodotus, the story was that, in an ecstasy, he rose
towards heaven, and falling back again was killed. This gossip is repeated by
the anonymous writer quoted by Eusebius, but he expressly declares that it is
not to be relied on. He is quite right. Such stories as these do not help us to
form any adequate conception of such an important religious movement. It did
not end with the death of the prophets. Thirteen years after the death of
Maximilla, the new prophecy still divided the Christian community of Ancyra.
And for a long time the Montanists caused discussion and controversy, not only
in Asia Minor, but in Antioch and Alexandria, and in the churches of the West.
Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, condemned them, in a letter addressed to Caricus
and Pontius; to this were attached the signatures of several other bishops,
together with their protests against the innovators. Clement of
Alexandria, in his Stromata, proposes to treat the subject in a book
On Prophecy. But it is in the West that the history of Montanism has special importance.

Even as early
as 177 A.D., the date of the martyrs of Lyons, the mind of the Church in Gaul
and in Rome was deeply stirred by the new prophesying. The new Church of Lyons,
having many Asiatic and Phrygian members, was well informed on all that took
place in Asia. In Rome also, the matter came up very early, and, as in many
other places, it caused at first great perplexity. The confessors of Lyons
wrote about it, from prison, "to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and
also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome". These letters were inserted in the
celebrated account of the martyrs of Lyons, with the opinion of the "brethren in Gaul", on the spirit of prophecy claimed by Montanus,
Alcibiades, and Theodotus. Eusebius, who actually saw the document, describes
it as wise and quite orthodox ; yet his words convey the impression that it was not
entirely opposed to the Phrygian movement. St. Irenaeus, who carried these
letters to Rome, cannot be numbered amongst the opponents of Montanism. It is
conceivable that the Christians of Lyons rather advised toleration, and the
preservation of the peace of the Church. We do not know what effect this
intervention had on Eleutherus, nor how long the Church of Rome was in taking a
decision. It looks as if Rome also felt that there was no call for mutual
excommunication. Tertullian says the decision was not unfavourable to the
prophets, and that the Pope had already despatched conciliatory letters to that
effect, when a confessor, named Praxeas, arrived from Asia with fresh
information, and succeeded in inducing him to alter his first decision.

Thus
the Montanist pretensions to inspiration did not succeed in obtaining recognition
in Rome. It is possible that for some time, Rome merely maintained an attitude
of reserve. The Paschal controversy was not likely to incline the Roman Church
to attach much weight to the authority of the Asiatic episcopate. But a more
decided attitude was eventually taken. Already by the beginning of the 3rd
century, as the Passion of St Perpetua and the writings of Tertullian show, it
was necessary to choose between communion with the Church and belief in the new
prophesying.

The movement was
therefore discouraged in the West as in the East. Nevertheless, it continued to
spread. The prophets being dead, the objections to their ecstasies gradually
subsided. What was extravagant and open to criticism in the Phrygian
organisation and in the assemblies at Pepuza, naturally attracted less
attention out of Asia. From a distance, the most striking feature was the great
moral austerity of the Montanists. Their fasts, their special rules of life,
presented no features that orthodox ascetics had not long made familiar.
Visions, ecstasies, and prophecies were equally familiar. In many lands, those
who led specially mortified lives, enthusiasts and people much imbued with the
idea of the Second Advent, felt themselves attracted by the new prophesying.
Tertullian, having long lived in a state of mind which may be described as
Montanist, finally became an open convert to Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla
(c. 205 A.D.). This was not then possible without a rupture with the
Catholic Church. But that did not hinder him. The Montanists of Africa chose
him as their head, and even called themselves Tertullianists. This is not the
place to speak of the writings he published, both before and after his
separation from the Church. It is enough to say that his most important Montanist
work, the treatise in seven books on ecstasy, De Extasi, no longer exists. The
seventh book he devoted to a refutation of Apollonius. Tertullianists existed
till St. Augustine brought their last Carthaginian adherents back to the
Catholic Church.

About this time the
Montanists were represented in Rome by a certain Proculus or Proclus, highly
venerated

by Tertullian. St
Hippolytus paid some slight attention to the Montanists, but without dwelling
much on them; he objects to their fasts, and more especially to their trust in
Montanus and his prophetesses. Another Roman author, Caius, wrote a dialogue
against Proclus, of which a few lines survive. It does not seem that the sect
ever took deep root in Rome, for after St Hippolytus, we hear no more of it.

In Phrygia,
however, Montanism lasted much longer. The New Jerusalem was long venerated.
There lay the mother-community. Annual pilgrimages replaced an exodus en masse. There was a great feast—Easter or

Pentecost—which began
with a dismal display of fasting and ended with great rejoicings. A permanent
organisation had taken the place of the prophets and their first lieutenants.
First came the Patriarchs, then the These two grades seem to have represented
the central government of the sect; the local hierarchy, bishops, priests,
etc., was subordinated to them. Women had been intimately connected with the
origin of the movement; they always held a higher place in the sect than in the
Church. The Church had had its prophetesses like the Montanists; for a longtime
still it had deaconesses. According to St Epiphanius, the Montanists admitted
women to the priesthood and the episcopate. He also says that, in their
ceremonies, seven virgins, dressed in white, and carrying in their hands
lighted torches, played a great part. These virgins indulged in ecstatic
transports, weeping over the sins of the world, and so carried away the congregation
that they too were melted to tears. In his day the sect was known under various
names, such as Priscillianists, Quintillianists, Tascodrugites, and
Artotyrites. The two first names were derived of course from those of notable
Montanists. The name of Tascodrugites came from two Phrygian words, signifying
the forefinger and the nose. Some of the sect, it appears, placed their Anger
in their nose during prayer. The name Artotyrites was

derived from the use of
bread and cheese in their mysteries. All this is but doubtful. And still more so
is the rumour, an evident calumny, that in one of their rites they bled a child
to death.

Their peculiar method of
determining the date of Easter is better attested. During the controversy over
the various orthodox reckonings, the Montanists fixed on a settled date in the
Julian calendar, April 6.

But these details on the
Montanism of a later date have but a relative interest. What is really
important is the origin and character of the primitive movement, and the
attitude of the Church. However eagerly the speedy return of Christ was looked
for, towards the end of the 2nd century, however deep was the respect then felt
for the prophetic spirit and its various manifestations, the Church was not
drawn away by Montanus from the true path; neither prophecy in general, nor
the expectation of the Last Day was forbidden; but orthodox tradition was
upheld against religious vagaries, and the authority of the hierarchy against
the claims of private inspiration